0:00:06 - Helen
Hello and thank you for joining us for another episode of the HR Edit, the podcast from South East employers looking at those common and often tricky HR questions. Now, sarah and I are very excited to be joined by a very special guest today SEE's new Employment Relations and Investigations Business Partner. Welcome to the podcast, ben. Good morning, thank you very much for having me. 

0:00:23 - Ben
It's good to be here. It's my first one. Good morning, thank you very much for having me. It's good to be here. It's my first one, obviously, so yeah, excited to get going. 

0:00:30 - Helen
Yeah, absolutely. How long have you been with us now, ben? 

0:00:33 - Ben
I think I've been with with SCE about six weeks now, so it's flown by. It's been a whirlwind. I've been in at the deep end but really enjoying it. 

0:00:43 - Sarah
Yeah, we did kind of throw you in at the deep end, didn't, with a couple of trips to London in your first couple of weeks, but it feels like you've been here longer, ben, so I think that's probably a good thing. 

0:00:53 - Ben
I was going to say I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing, sarah but I'll take it as a good one. 

0:00:58 - Helen
Well, it's great to have you be part of the SEE team. 

0:01:12 - Ben
Absolutely, Helen. Yeah, thank you. So I've pretty much exclusively worked in local authorities within the southeast of you know that being the region that we cover for roughly the past kind of eight to nine years. So I started working for a district or borough council. I was there for about half a dozen years or so doing generalist HR kind of stuff in a nutshell. I then moved on to a large county local authority and also supporting a fire service there, where I moved into this kind of employment relations and investigations type arena. I was there for a couple of years and then obviously the opportunity arose with South East Employers and here I am today. So that's kind of my background. So I'm fresh out of quite a fast-paced, intense employment relations environment supporting and working on lots of different investigations. 

0:02:03 - Sarah
And you've landed in a kind of fast place, fast paced, I should say environment with SEE, where we keep lumping work on you constantly, I imagine. 

0:02:12 - Ben
Yeah, no, absolutely Sarah. But in some ways and I've been saying this to a lot of people that are within the team and those that I've been meeting as part of this role it all feels really familiar, which is the nice thing. You're coming out of a local authority and having worked pretty much, as I said, exclusively for them into this type of model but supporting local authority, so it all feels very familiar, just kind of coming at it from a slightly different angle, with a slightly different lens on on things. Perhaps. 

0:02:41 - Sarah
So, ben, just to give a bit of background to our listeners, then just about you personally, I know you've give a bit of background to our listeners, then just about you personally, I know you've got a bit of a high-octane hobby that you like to do. 

0:02:52 - Ben
Can you tell us a bit about that? Yes, sarah, I do, you're right. So I'm in my spare time, when I'm not doing investigations and the joys that they bring, I am a big motorsport fan, so I'm normally either at or watching on the television some form of motorsport when it's on or available. And last year and it's been sort of my dream, I suppose for a little while to become a racing driver. Now I think the ship has very much sailed with that one in terms of that actually happening, but I did last year go through the process to get my racing driver's license. So technically I am a qualified racing driver. 

There are caveats to that, which are a I don't have a car to race and b I don't have any money to buy that car to race. But but should the opportunity present itself, I am primed and ready to go. I certainly won't be appearing in in Formula One anytime soon, but but that's my, my big passion outside of work and I do kind of track days and then things like that where you can take your own car around. You know various race circuits and that kind of thing. So that's my big passion outside of work. 

0:03:57 - Sarah
Well, rather you than me, ben, because I went in a car. We got up my husband a track day to drive some fancy cars and then we ended up doing the high speed one in a BMW. Um, I don't remember much about it apart from that my children were in the car as well and I probably silent screamed quite a lot of the way around the track. So, um, yeah, rather you than me, I'm gonna stick to my, uh, my 70 miles an hour. 

0:04:22 - Ben
I think. I think you're right. You either you either enjoy it and you like it, or you don't. It can be quite a dividing. It's probably the wrong word, but it's very much like Marmite, isn't it? 

0:04:31 - Sarah
Yeah, yeah, whiplash was the word of the day, I think. 

0:04:37 - Helen
So, Ben, you're going to be telling us a little bit about Grievance 101. Can you kick off with what is a grievance? 

0:04:46 - Ben
101. Can you kick off with what is a grievance? Absolutely, helen, thank you. So a grievance, in a nutshell, is a complaint made by an employee or two or more employees. There's a collective version of a grievance as well to their employer, and I always say that the grievances are almost distinguished by the fact that they are employee-led. So, as compared to any other employment related process, there could be anything like disciplinary capability, any kind of change, management, restructure A grievance is very much employee led. It doesn't exist and it doesn't progress without the employee doing something or raising something. So that's how I always differentiate it. 

The grievances can also be referred to as complaints or disputes at work. Those are some of the other common terms that are very much a synonym of a grievance. The only thing I always say is that a dispute is a broad term. We hear about other disputes between, for example, trade unions and employers, so it's only a dispute in nature. It's not a formal dispute like we hear or see about in other scenarios. But in a nutshell, as I say very simply, boiled down to its fundamentals, it is a complaint made by an employee to their employer about something they have a problem with. 

0:05:59 - Sarah
And they're quite common, aren't they, Ben? Until I joined FCE, I don't think I realised how common grievances were. I mean, maybe I'm just a I know I'm definitely a conflict avoider, but we see a lot of grievances and we see, and we brought in as an independent investigator. Because I think actually it kind of gives that kind of space, doesn't it, between the council having to do it themselves and bringing in somebody independent, who you know is a specialist in these areas, to having to do it themselves and bringing in somebody independent you know is a specialist in these areas. I know you've dealt with quite a few. Are there any kind of common complaints that you see? 

0:06:30 - Ben
to just give us a few examples yeah, so I suppose grievances can relate to anything. I've seen a whole spectrum of matters from you know, some really really serious allegations of things like unfair treatment, and I suppose in that sense I'm talking about bullying, harassment, victimization, discrimination of any sort through to and you know, I suppose they are all serious to the person raising them. But in terms of how the employer sees it, it could be things like pay, working conditions or even kind of disagreements with managers or colleagues and that kind of thing which I think is becoming increasingly common in terms of those disagreements, those character clashes perhaps between managers or colleagues or the way that behaviour is perceived between people in that sort of team and management dynamic. So it really can relate to anything and that could be quite serious and quite challenging to resolve, or it could be not so serious and actually quite straightforward to resolve for the employer okay, thanks, ben. 

0:07:33 - Sarah
So in terms of how you raise a grievance, then, because obviously you know on any internet or any sharepoint in most councils they've got policies and you know procedures and ways of doing stuff. But how would you go about raising agreement, say, if you were an employee and didn't really know about the process particularly? 

0:07:50 - Ben
No, it's a really good question, sarah, because, like you say on, if you look on any intranet or website there's a policy available, but in practice sometimes that can be difficult to interpret. For employees looking to raise one, the policy will normally set out how to raise it and ideally it should do that quite clearly. Ordinarily things should be raised to a line manager, or it may be a central point such as an HR team, but more commonly, I think nowadays, it is that it should be raised to a manager. The question, naturally, that people then always ask is what if I've got a problem with my manager? You know, I can't, I can't raise that to them. Uh, if they are the the problem or the perceived problem, so in that case normally the escalation point is just the next senior manager and equally, if they're implicated in some way as well, it just keeps going up the chain to a point where someone that is not involved or implicated in some way in the grievance can receive it and do something with it. 

What I always say, and what most employers will encourage and advocate in their policies and equally in the ACAS code of practice, is that things should be raised informally in the first instance, because formal processes are very time consuming, very stressful for the individuals involved, and particularly the employee raising the grievance, and therefore if they can be avoided, that's only a good thing, especially if a resolution can be reached as well. So I always advocate that. Now there will be some scenarios where that's not appropriate, depending on the nature of the grievance and what is being alleged, but where possible, an informal approach should be attempted. So, as an employee, what that means is approaching your manager, you know, in some sort of structured way it could be via normal supervision, it could be outside of that to raise your concerns, and ideally as soon as you have those concerns, because the sooner it's raised, the sooner it's dealt with, and the thing we often find with grievances is that memories fade as well. So it's important to raise things as soon as possible, really knit them in the bud and go that way as an employer or as a manager receiving the grievance. This is why relationships with the people you manage are really important, because they need to feel able to approach you on that informal basis to try and work through that and find a resolution without the need for a formal process. 

When the employee is raising the grievance, they should include any relevant evidence to support what they're saying, or at least a reasonable sample of that. You know they might have a lot and actually to dump that on that person receiving it initially, who may not be the person that will see it through to the end. They just need a reasonable, a reasonable sample there. But the key points to cover when raising a grievance are to explain the issues that you have, but also what you want the employer to do about it, and by that I mean what resolution or outcome are you want the employer to do about it, and by that I mean what resolution or outcome are you seeking? The employer is not obliged to automatically give an employee exactly what they are asking for, but they can then consider that as part of the process and any outcome they reach at the end. And on this point ACAS do recommend that it's helpful for people to be realistic. So, for example and this is a true example I've seen grievances seeking compensation for whatever reason you know, of quite large amounts of money. 

That's not normally something a grievance policy or process can make provision for. It simply wouldn't be appropriate to award compensation via that kind of process. However, and keeping on financial terms, I've also seen grievances where, for example, there's a payroll error that has been made and, for whatever reason, unfortunately that's not been resolved as quickly as the employee would like or as quickly as it should have been. They have raised a grievance. Is, you know, probably quite reasonable to expect that the employer corrects that payroll error ASAP? So there's always kind of levels of reasonableness to what people are seeking, I suppose. But the important thing is to be realistic when raising it. 

0:12:01 - Sarah
And when you talk about those other kind of options that people can go down before they go down a formal grievance, are you kind of talking about that sort of mediation, be it independent mediation or in-house mediation? Would that be a route, potentially, that people can go down to resolve something before it went into a formal grievance? 

0:12:17 - Ben
It could be. Sarah, yeah, you're right, and I think there are again. There are levels even to mediation. So I think mediation, formal mediation, I think mediation, formal mediation I think people are kind of familiar with that concept. You know, a mediator would facilitate a meeting with the parties involved, potentially meet them separately beforehand and try and work through that with them. But I think mediation as a principle is actually something that can be useful when dealing with it informally, because it might just mean, for example and not not all managers will feel confident doing this necessarily, but it may be that a manager receives some kind of informal concern from somebody and what they can do is kind of meet with if there's two or three parties involved and facilitate a conversation about working through that and moving forwards in a way that works for all of those parties. So it's not necessarily formal mediation that's been arranged or commissioned, but it is something that's a kind of facilitated conversation or a restorative conversation to try and repair those relationships again without the need for a formal process or formal mediation. 

0:13:28 - Helen
So, ben, once the grievance has been raised, what is the formal process that happens next? What are the next steps that are taken? 

0:13:35 - Ben
It's a really good question, helen, because again I think these things are written down in policies on intranets and that kind of thing. But again, it's difficult for people who may be in an emotive state depending on the issues they're raising, to understand how this works in practice. And it's also why it's important that policies and processes are clear and easily accessible to people. But assuming all the things we've talked about so far have not been successful or the grievances of a particularly serious or sensitive nature to the point where informal action would simply not be appropriate, we are, as you say, into the formal grievance arena. So what happens at that point is the employee raises that grievance in writing formally to whoever they need to raise that to, as we talked about earlier. What the employer then has to do is receive that, acknowledge it and arrange a grievance meeting or hearing the two terms are fairly interchangeable without unreasonable delay. Two terms are fairly interchangeable without unreasonable delay? Now, there's no. The ideal to that would probably be five working days, maybe 10 working days at a push. Equally, the employer may have their own policy on how quickly they will meet with that employee to discuss their grievance. There are caveats to that and I can talk perhaps about timescales with this kind of process separately in a short while. But there are caveats to that. 

We live in a world where everybody is very, very busy. People have annual leave, people are off sick, people's diaries are very busy. So whilst this should be a priority, sometimes there does have to be a pragmatic approach which means that that initial meeting may not quite be within one or two weeks, but the employer should absolutely aim to do that and ideally, kind of document why they've not been able to to meet that that timeline. If it's not been possible at that meeting the employee has the right to be accompanied, which again, I think everyone is familiar with. So they can be accompanied by a work colleague or a union, a trade union representative. Some employers will offer some flexibility on that, particularly if reasonable adjustments need to be considered depending on the circumstances. Circumstances. So that could be for reasons of disability for example, and it may be that a reasonable adjustment is to allow somebody other than a work colleague or a union representative to attend that meeting. 

So at the meeting, I suppose the objective of that meeting for the person chairing it, who may be the manager that has received the grievance, it may be somebody that that's been appointed to hear it independently within an organisation another senior manager perhaps is to allow that person to really understand the issues being raised, review any evidence that the employee is bringing and to ask the employee any questions for clarification, to just really understand the grievance in its full entirety. If, once they've heard all of that, they think that it needs to be investigated, then that meeting is likely to be adjourned to allow an investigation to take place as required. And again, I can perhaps talk around some of the more mechanical points of a grievance investigation separately. Once that investigation is done, the meeting will then reconvene and whenever that concludes whether it be kind of in part one or part two, as I always call it the employer will need to tell the employee when they expect to be able to make a decision on the outcome of their grievance and grievances are typically upheld or not upheld. They can be partially upheld and that's the decision that the employer needs to make, along with what are they going to do about it in terms of any recommendations, resolution, action, moving forwards, and and then obviously the employee would be sent a copy of that outcome. They may well be met with briefly beforehand to explain that that's the outcome and then obviously they have a right to appeal that decision as well. 

Typically, organisational policies allow for grievances that have been partially or not upheld to be appealed. 

That can sometimes be a bit too tight on kind of trying to control that. When you look at the ACAS guidance and ACAS code of practice they talk slightly wider in that actually, regardless of whether the grievance has been upheld or not, or partially, if it's not been resolved, you have a right to appeal that decision. So depending on what resolution has been offered you may feel the need to appeal that. The challenge there comes that appeals have to be made within a certain time frame, normally something like 10 working days, and of course, depending on the recommendations and actions arising from the grievance outcome, it may be that 10 days simply isn't long enough to implement them. So there's sometimes just a case of keeping a bit of a watching brief on it. Some people may appeal purely because they've not seen the kind of tangible outcome yet and that kind of thing, so that that is broadly a grievance process just just a question that's popped into my mind, ben, is you talk about the kind of resolution? 

0:18:56 - Sarah
are there examples of what was I mean? Obviously it'll depend on seriousness, or you know whether it's unprofessional conduct or I remember the exact wording, but, um, you know, I'm sure it can be anything from somebody's dismissed or to you know, we recommend mediation, we recommend this, we recommend I don't know. I mean, can you give us some examples of what a resolution might look like? 

0:19:18 - Ben
absolutely, and I'm going to take that question in two parts, sarah, and I'll take the latter part of it first and then come back to the can somebody be dismissed point secondly, because it's a really interesting point. So the the latter point, in terms of perhaps some more routine outcomes, it could be mediation, absolutely right. It could be that, um, the employer, you, it could be that the employer recommends that. That will always come, with the caveat, unless it's already been established during the process that that requires all parties involved to need to be willing to take part in that. As always, it can be a range of other things. So, for example, um, it might be that some training is going to be put in place for the employee raising it if they feel like they hypothetically perhaps were not being supported with their workload, they were struggling with that kind of thing. It might be that actually, part of you know it might be established through an investigation. The part of the reason for that is they've not had the correct or adequate training to carry out those duties and therefore that that could be a recommendation. 

Employers can make any recommendations they they deem fit arising from a process. What can be difficult is that the employee raising. It may not know what all of those are. And the reason I say that is because, for example, if an employee raises a grievance against their line manager and there's some allegations of generally inappropriate management behavior perhaps the way somebody's conducting themselves and that kind of thing it may be that the employer finds that that that is correct and actually that manager was not behaving in line with the standards expected and this is correct and actually that manager was not behaving in line with the standards expected. And this is probably a nice segue on to the can somebody be dismissed point. 

But because that's an outcome and a recommendation relating to somebody else, it wouldn't necessarily or probably strongly likely that it wouldn't be shared with the employee because it wouldn't be appropriate to disclose an outcome that doesn't relate to the employee. 

What an employer normally says in that scenario is that they will take appropriate action. So it's just a very high level outcome to the employee. The manager would then be informed of any outcomes relating to them and the segue there into the dismissal point is a really interesting one. Employers are encouraged and acas make this very clear that where allegations are made by an employee against another employee, be it a manager, a peer colleague or anyone else, that the employer should investigate that in full before kind of making any rash decisions, as it were. So what that means is just kind of using the examples we're just playing out here, sarah, if it was misconduct identified rather than more, maybe performance capability related issues, then the employer would investigate that via the grievance process and they would, following that process, then potentially move into a disciplinary process with that information, or potentially even go straight to a disciplinary hearing If they've already got a report indicating misconduct has taken place for then that correct process to be followed to decide if any sanction should be issued to the people involved. 

0:22:45 - Sarah
And that makes sense. I'd actually completely forgotten about the disciplinary process, even though we've had an entire podcast on that. I think it's just slipped my mind. So in terms then, as an independent investigator like yourself, you can make recommendations within your sort sort of final report. Do the council take those as recommendations, or do they generally uphold those recommendations, or do some just completely dismiss it and potentially do their own thing? What sort of ACAS's stance on that? 

0:23:13 - Ben
I suppose I suppose the the stance, um and I think it's a stance shared by ACAS organisations just generally is that recommendations are just that they are recommendations. There's no obligation for them to be implemented. That being said, there should obviously be a desire to work towards resolution, particularly from the employer's point of view, and then therefore, the more that can be implemented the better. And I always kind of bring it back to if they're not going to be implemented, it does need to be made quite clear why and why they're not possible. For example, that is more likely actually when there is an independent investigator, because as an independent investigator I don't necessarily know what might work for that organisation or what might not work, whereas working within an organisation, you have a feel for the culture, you know what's going to kind of be palatable to the employer, and it can be a bit easier then to make recommendations or frame recommendations in such a way that they will be accepted and taken forwards coming in externally. That that is generally a luxury that I I don't have, but but actually what it does mean is that the you know the recommendations are are somewhat a free-for-all, so I can make any recommendations that I I think are appropriate and or necessary. It would then be down to the employer to decide whether they implement those, and part of the work that I would do is generally to follow up on that, if possible to understand have they been implemented? Have they not? Can I support in any way with those kind of things? So it's difficult to say. 

I think generally they are accepted because, as you know, coming in as an external investigator, people have invested in in me and in us to come in and do that piece of work and therefore it would be odd perhaps to make that investment and then not follow through with with recommendations. That being said, some are just simply not, not, not always possible to implement. As I say, that the key thing there, particularly if the employee is aware of them and expecting them. Because I think, although recommendations, as I say, are only recommendations, the minute they are shared with an employee, there is an expectation that they will be fulfilled and seen through and actioned. So they're not going to be. It's just important that the employer explains why, or potentially why, not in their fullest sense. And can they be done in a slightly different way? 

0:25:47 - Sarah
so, ben, we at see are obviously a kind of an external um organization. Uh, we are here to support our councils in the southeast, but in terms of what we do, we do the investigation side of stuff. So if you had to say and you know a few sentences, I suppose, or or longer, if you want um, what is the benefit of going with an external organization when it comes to um grievance investigation? 

0:26:12 - Ben
no, it's a really good question, sarah. So I think there are broadly um, two or three key reasons that the organizations go external, or perhaps reasons why they should. But the first one is obviously for the that, the absolute independence and objectivity that it brings. Because I think more often than not nowadays and having worked, you know, within councils in the southeast there's an effort to source somebody independent internally to investigate something. The challenge that can present is there will naturally always be a question about well, how independent are they? Because if the manager commissioning that investigation knows that person well enough to be confident in their ability to undertake an investigation, investigation, it naturally generates some questions from the employee, perhaps from uh, hr teams, that kind of thing about well, actually, how independent is that? In that sense, so by going external, there is a an absolute, what I call a sterile boundary between the organization and the person actually investigating the grievance in this scenario. 

So that's reason number one. 

Reason number two can simply be and again I've kind of already mentioned it people are very, very busy within local authorities nowadays and it can purely be a capacity issue. 

So than potentially investing resource internally to allow investigations to be undertaken when normally they're undertaken by people who are also doing a day job and then having to do what can be quite a lengthy and full-on investigation. On top of that it can be purely a capacity thing and then flowing on from that is is the time scales piece. So anywhere you look, particularly ACAS will say that these kind of processes there is no fixed time scale but need to be resolved again without unreasonable delay. Now what an unreasonable delay looks like will vary case to case and you, when we kind of get to things like employment tribunals and that kind of thing, they will take views on what justifies unreasonable versus reasonable. But by bringing in an external investigator, the strong likelihood is that that investigation will progress at a rate of not much higher than and much quicker than if somebody internal was carrying it out. So it really puts some momentum and emphasis on that kind of expediting piece to get that resolved for all parties employer and employee as soon as possible. 

0:28:51 - Sarah
And I think, just going off those time scales, it strikes me that actually you know that's a huge reason to do so If somebody else has got another job alongside what they're, you know, doing this investigation. You've got all the interviews to do, haven't you? You've got the reports to generate, and they're generally not short. You know there's a lot of work there which realistically cannot be done alongside somebody's day job. 

0:29:12 - Ben
Absolutely. 

0:29:14 - Sarah
So, Ben, just to cover up one more thing that I think is really important, and in terms of a grievance investigation, there's a lot of people that are involved within an organisation and you know it can be, as you said, a collective grievance against an individual. How do you deal with the sort of right to reply, I suppose, for those individuals or individuals that is involved after that sort of investigation? 

0:29:40 - Ben
Yeah, thanks, sarah. So I think that the term that I coined for this is this kind of natural justice piece where you know, actually anyone named in a grievance where there are, say, allegations against them, rather than perhaps they are named in a kind of contextual way, should be made aware of that and should be given a full opportunity to respond to any allegations made against them. Now, to do that, parts of the grievance submitted by the employee may need to be shared by the employer with that third party. It could be a manager, it could be two managers, it could be a colleague within their team. Now that obviously has to be done within the normal boundaries of data protection and confidentiality, but also without oversharing. So it's about giving that person absolutely enough that they can respond to it, but not too much that they're suddenly privy to information that they shouldn't have been. That should be done with consent from the employee raising the grievance. That can be done a couple of ways. 

Some organisations will actually have it in their policy that basically, by submitting a grievance, you are saying that you're happy for us to share relevant parts of it with people named in it to allow a fair, thorough, robust process and investigation. 

If it's not in there, then you may just have to speak to that individual, perhaps when you meet with them as part of the grievance meeting or hearing, to say you know, actually there is a need here to share this with this person or that person and here's how we'll go about that. 

Are you happy for us to do that? Because actually that's really important to the employer being able to progress that grievance. In fact, it would be quite difficult for them to do that, you know, without sharing it. So that's broadly how that works. And then, obviously, as part of the investigation, those people would be met with and given an opportunity to respond to what's been said about them, whether that be they've done something, they've not done something, or they've said or not said something like that. And then, just going back to an earlier point, those points are the ones that should be investigated via that investigation before any decision is taken about whether misconduct has taken place or not and whether, moving into a separate process beyond the grievance, one at that point may be applicable and just sorry, I said that was the final thing. 

0:32:07 - Sarah
That's one more thing for me. Um, it just struck me as a as a point and do you get many sort of counter grievances? So you know somebody's made an allegation against a particular individual, how common is it then for that individual that's had the grievance against them to then potentially make a counter grievance? And is that allowed? Can it run at the same time? Does it have to be one after another? 

0:32:29 - Ben
it's a really good question and one I've nearly forgotten about, sarah, so I'm glad you asked that. Um, yes, it's the short answer. Counter grievances are a thing. They can happen. There's not often a lot stopping somebody from making a counter grievance, you know, particularly if, um, there have perhaps been some disagreement to and fro, kind of before the before someone raised the grievance, and then it's kind of this, this tit tat mentality. 

Yeah absolutely so that it can happen. It is allowed. I think, though, most you know grievance policies allow any employee to raise a grievance against any other employee. That's the headline, but as always there's kind of a how does that work in practice? For example, I wouldn't expect a manager to raise a grievance against somebody that they manage because actually they're in that management position. So if they're, for example, you're experiencing behavior towards them from a member of their team that they manage that is inappropriate, well, actually they're in the driving seat to manage that through potentially an alternative process and that kind of thing, or by, you know, escalating it to a senior manager to to manage that. 

So I wouldn't expect to see that kind of thing, and it's generally, um, not advisable to to do that. But when it's, you know, colleague to colleague, peer to peer counters do happen, I think often that can depend on people's level of reassurance about the process being followed. So if they are informed nice and early on or as early as possible look, we've had a grievance against you, but actually you are going to be given a full opportunity to respond they then hopefully will see that as their place to respond rather than raise a counter. But equally, there might be things that they wouldn as their place to respond rather than raise a counter, but equally, there might be things that they wouldn't be able to respond to through an investigation that they want to raise separately and therefore, you know, a counter grievance may well be be raised in that scenario. So there's nothing to stop it. There's just some caveats around generally how that can work in in practice 

0:34:31 - Helen
thank you so much for joining us, ben, and, as always, thank you, sarah. If you are a member of SEE and would like more information about the services we offer regarding grievances, investigations, mediations or anything else, please visit our website at wwwseempcouk, where you can find all the details, or email us at info at seempcouk. The HR Edit is free to listen to on Apple Podcasts, spotify or wherever you get your podcasts where you can find it. On our website at wwwseempcouk, forward slash the HR Edit, where members can also find any related resources, and you can find all of our previous episodes, including our episode in season one regarding conducting a robust investigation, which goes nicely alongside what ben has discussed today. Thank you for joining us and we'll see you next week you.